Race to Colorado State football stadium slow and steady

For months, it was the topic of discussion: Are you for or against CSU's proposed on-campus stadium? Today, with CSU in a silent phase of fundraising for the project, people on both sides of the aisle have shifted their approach.

Feb. 21, 2013

Loading Photo Galleries ...

Written by

This rendering shows Colorado State University's proposed $246 million on-campus football stadium. Courtesy of Colorado State University

Fast facts about CSU’s proposed on-campus stadium

• Colorado State University has proposed building a $246 million, 43,000-seat on-campus football stadium, with a roughly 12-acre footprint, off Lake Street. The cost would likely be closer to $300 million when costs for parking, a proposed alumni center and more are included. • Approved by CSU President Tony Frank and the university system’s governing board in October, the plan calls for no usage of state funds, taxes or tuition dollars in the stadium’s construction. Opponents of the stadium, under the auspices of Save Our Stadium Hughes, are concerned taxpayer dollars could be used to cover possible bond payments should stadium revenues not do so. • The stadium fundraising campaign is in a “quiet phase,” university spokesman Mike Hooker told the Coloradoan in January. CSU is “cultivating” donors, looking at potential corporate sponsorships and stadium naming rights deals. State law doesn’t require the university to reveal donor names or contributions. • Next steps include launching a public campaign that would likely include an online presence, advertising push and outreach to inform people how they could donate.

More

ADVERTISEMENT

It’s as if someone twisted a knob and turned the volume down — way down.

More than four months ago, the decibel level of debate surrounding Colorado State University’s proposed on-campus football stadium had risen to what seemed to be an all-time high. It was October — nine months after newly hired CSU Athletic Director Jack Graham issued the idea onto a public stage — and the university’s governing board gave President Tony Frank a conditional thumbs-up to move forward with the project.

Frank threw his support behind building the proposed $246 million, 46,000-seat stadium but charged Graham and others to raise at least half the stadium’s cost, or $125 million, from private donors. The fundraising team has until October 2014 to do so, at which time Frank will recommend to the CSU System Board of Governors whether it’s time to dig shovels into the ground.

CSU is now in the quiet phase of fundraising, spokesman Mike Hooker told the Coloradoan last month, meaning the university is wooing big-time donors before launching a more public campaign. Not much has changed on this front since January.

At the same time, it seems community talk about the stadium — an issue that divided Fort Collins like few had seen before — has quieted. But it’s not nonexistent. Public debate has turned to behind-the-scenes posturing by people on both sides of the aisle.

Be Bold

Stadium supporters are generally part of Be Bold, which has focused 100 percent of its efforts on supporting CSU and Graham’s athletic department “in any way we can,” co-founder Tyler Shannon said.

Its members are in the stands at men’s basketball games. They celebrated Coach Jim McElwain’s most-recent recruitment season and the future of Rams football. They’ll play host to a tailgate party at the spring football game in hopes of spreading a pro-stadium message. And “many” have upped their donations to CSU.

“Those with large pocketbooks have been in communication with the athletic department on their plans to donate while the rest are ready and waiting for the public piece of the (on-campus stadium fundraising) campaign to kick off for them,” Shannon wrote in an email to the paper.

(Page 2 of 3)

Shannon is “very very confident” Graham and the fundraising team will “not just meet their goal, but exceed it,” and he and others are “all willing to do what is asked of us to help them achieve these goals ahead of schedule if possible.”

Be Bold no longer wants to take part in the “us vs. them” mentality that existed — some argue it still might — between stadium opponents and proponents, Shannon said. Energy is going to back CSU and the effort to get the stadium “going as soon as possible.”

Save Our Stadium Hughes

Until Frank’s October 2014 decision — or sooner, depending on fundraising progress — stadium opponents plan to share their arguments with whoever will listen in the hopes that “logic will prevail” and the project will be shut down.

“I think we can sway the general public,” said leader Bob Vangermeersch, when asked how confident he was in the group’s ability to convince university governors that the idea for an on-campus stadium is “ill-conceived” “economically, ecologically and socially.”

The anti-stadium group Save Our Stadium Hughes, or SOSH, is now wrapping up three independent studies to be shared with CSU students, faculty and alumni, members of Fort Collins City Council, church groups, parent teacher associations and more by request. One is a 44-page analysis by Louis Scharf, a professor emeritus at CSU, in which the self-proclaimed college athletic supporter deems the stadium economically risky and explores “unfounded needs.”

Copies of this report were sent to CSU governing board Chairman Joe Zimlich and Frank. Scharf said the board office would send copies along to its members.

SOSH has asked to present its argument at a May 3 meeting of the Board of Governors. Its members are also working with the local bicycle community to explore use of Hughes as a potential home for not just football, but also outdoor sports, and keeping an eye on athletic department spending.

When asked if it would still consider suing the university, should the stadium be built, Vangermeersch said, “We would prefer not to do that. We would prefer logic would prevail.”

(Page 3 of 3)

Frank and the governors

The Coloradoan asked Frank if a community argument could sway his decision or whether his final word would be based solely upon the outcome of the fundraising campaign. He declined to answer specific questions, instead sending a statement in which he maintained support of an on-campus stadium that proponents argue could attract new students and engage alumni with the campus.

“My reasoning has not changed: I believe this is a project worth pursuing and would be of great benefit to the university on the whole,” he wrote in the statement, adding that conversations with potential donors are best carried out in one-on-one conversations, rather than in the public arena.

The Coloradoan posed a similar question to the Board of Governors: Is there an argument, beyond financial feasibility, that would cause board members to think twice about approving the project?

A statement said the board, since conditionally approving the project in October, has received informal updates from Frank and has “great confidence that he and his team are working to put together a feasible financial package for the project.”

“The board will consider that plan in more detail at the appropriate time,” the statement said.